However, Moyer requested three additional variances in conjunction
with the use variance. In addition to the use variance, Moyer requested variances
from: (1) Section 14-113 of the Philadelphia Zoning Ordinance prohibiting
multiple uses or structures on a single lot; (2) Section 14-1405 of the Philadelphia
Zoning Ordinance requiring 2 off street loading spaces in an industrial district; and
(3) the residential district minimum rear yard depth requirement. While the Board
set forth in its findings a summary of Moyer’s proposed residential development
plan, the Board failed to provide any finding of fact that addresses any of the
criteria supporting the decision to grant the foregoing three variances.
5
The Board
did not provide any explanation for its reasoning. While the Board’s decision
recognized the legal framework for granting variances, it did not make any factual
findings or explain how those facts led it to determine that unnecessary hardship
exists, that there is no public detriment, and that Moyer sought the minimum
variance required in order to obtain relief with respect to these three variance
requests.

the board was cool with converting that lot from industrial to residential and thought the current building was a blight on the neighborhood, but it was something with these three aditional variances that gummed up the works.

—

Ken Milano (before he went and edited this comment out to avoid the consequences of having wrote it) wrote:

"Awesometown" was to be on the empty lot, that building is something else. IMO "Awesometown" is the stupidest name for a row of houses ever. Of course I am one of the not-very-awesome-people who like totally don't jive with post-greens young urbanite ego-strokeing schtick but their marketing ploy has been very successful so I will give credit where credit is due. I am sure there are a handful of people who will feel that much more awesome when they buy in "Awesometown" Chad and co. can barely hide their contempt for neighbors who don't appreciate the awesomeness they propose but we just can't all be so sophisticated as them and their very-awesome clientele .

I think a lot of opposition came from the fact that there was supposed to be some sort of "affordable" component to the project. Neighbors fought the previous less-awesome proposal for housing on that site as well.

Personally I don't like their attitude, or aesthetics very much but the proposal was pretty solid in land use, building typology, and scale. I think would be a positive infill for the area. Not sure what is holding it up these days if it is approvals or financing.

—

Empty factories to the east and all our waste
The shape of things that came shows on the broken workers face

On the ZBA archive For this lot there was a 2006 proposal for 32 units in 6 stories followed by a 2008 proposal for 14 units in four stories which is listed as granted.

The six story, I remember this because I went to the FNA meeting. This was the same guy who built the Ice House Condos. He was shot down by the community on the 6 story building because many of the neighbors on Flora & Columbia didn't want that tall of a building blocking their air space, privacy and possibly things coming down from the balconies in their yards. At the same meeting, a vote was taken on the Ice House Condos which are still incomplete four years later. BTW, he was refused on his first visit to the ZBA, they shot him down on the IHC because of two things: the use of steel on the facade of the buildings and apartments below street level.

—

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)